A/HRC/4/33/Add.1 Page 18 Para Country Date Type Mandate Allegations transmitted Government Response or the competent criminal court, acted in a manner that was legally transparent and impartial and afforded all legal and procedural safeguards to the defendants from the date of their arrest to the date on which the case was heard by the competent court. This matter is clearly illustrated by the following facts: The police officers at the scene corroborated the charges against the accused persons through the statements that they made during the investigation by the Department of Public Prosecutions and the photographic evidence which showed that the accused persons had taken part in the rioting. Some of the accused persons who were arrested gave detailed confessions to the police and investigators of the Department of Public Prosecutions, admitting that they had caused a riot and set fire to garbage containers and car tires. They did not indicate that their confessions had been extracted as a result of coercion or violence. This is also evidenced by the fact that some of them gave statements to the police denying the charges against them.The legal arrests made by the police were based on a legal provision which provides that arrested suspects must be presented to the Department of Public Prosecutions within 48 hours. This is what the police did.The Department of Public Prosecutions told the accused persons that they had to have defence counsel present during questioning. Some lawyers appeared with the accused persons and presented their